The School for Social Entrepreneurs

Is mission drift better for your bottom line?

One of SSE's strengths over the past decade or more has been its adherence to both a central mission (supporting and developing social entrepreneurs in order to etc etc) and a central product (long-term action learning, practitioner-led, and peer-networked programmes, involving a variety of different interventions). This has given the organisation clarity of focus, and a well-refined, improved and robust product offering: a proven methodology that is replicating around the UK (am just back from Penzance!).

But the flipside to that clarity and focus is that it can affect flexibility, the ability to change with the times and, to an extent, the ability to seize a varied range of opportunities. This isn't totally the case with SSE, as our work has, if anything, become more and more relevant over time....and the programme appeals to a wide range of audiences. Nevertheless, I have been frustrated recently looking at other organisations who, seemingly, go for anything vaguely in this sector....decisions that are clearly powered by pound signs, not purpose.

When doing Myers-Briggs or Belbin-type team analysis, a key person is the 'values holder'...the person(s) who is principled and helps keep an organisation focused on its mission. The person who will discuss and debate with those who are pushing for a more diversified / entrepreneurial route. Ideally, those debates end up at a healthy central position between the two. But there are a few organisations for whom the values holders seem to have (literally) left the building. Or whose lack of clarity about their product / specialism is actually beneficial because it means they can shape themselves (or a work programme) to fit any tender, application or proposal. And this is, arguably, particularly the case in the social enterprise / entrepreneurship world where the primacy of the financial and social missions is less evident.

I'm not normally a fan of management tools and frameworks, but I am a fan of the old mission-money matrix. The one below comes from Fieldstone Alliance's Tools You Can Use:

I particularly like the imagery here....obviously the ideal is everything falls in the 'star' category, but the reality is often activities dotted in all three (heart, star, cash) categories. If you're doing anything that loses you money and has nothing to do with your mission, then please stop now, as the sign suggests.

What's important in using this simple tool to evaluate business development choices is to have clarity of mission first and, ideally, clarity about how you're measuring that impact. Otherwise, financial sustainability can naturally become the pre-eminent force, and you end up with organisations sustaining themselves in order to....well... sustain, rather than in order to achieve the social impact / mission that prompted their establishment.

Of course, this is a balance, as I've discussed before. And money remains of utmost importance.......but importance as a means to achieving social change, not in and of itself. And, ultimately, drifting off mission will have medium-to-long term effects: staff leaving, internal disputes, diminution of credibility in any one field/area, reputational damage from competition at all costs and so forth. Drifting starts with rapid movement and a swirl of activity....but soon forms into a frozen, stationary mass.

The history of social innovation and enterprise (an impossible task)

Our intern, Thor, who you will have read blogging here from time to time, has been looking into the history of this movement as part of his work / project while he's with us. Which reminded me of this post that I wrote for another blog some time ago. Thought it might be of interest....:

It's quite a common question to those of us who work in the world of social innovation and entrepreneurship: who was the first social entrepreneur? Or, when was the first social invention? The obvious answer, of course, is to say that such people (and ideas) have occurred throughout the ages. People like Robert Owen, Florence Nightingale, Gandhi, Michael Young (see here also) and the Rochdale Pioneers: social entrepreneurs and innovators one and all. But that only takes us a couple of centuries back: what about those social innovations that are so fundamental now that we don't even think of them as such: the school, law courts, democracy. The latter is famously dated back to Athens (around 510 BC), but law courts and schools date back to 2400 and 2500 BC in Sumeria. The names of those forward-thinking Sumerians are sadly lost in the sands of time, but the campaign for their recognition starts here.

It does help put today's work in perspective though. The term "social entrepreneur" may not have come into regular usage until the 1970s and 80s (its first use is believed to be in 1958, according to the mighty Wikipedia), but it's fairly evident that entrepreneurial people wanting to use their skills and traits to make social change have existed for many centuries. Lecturing charities today on how they should start to trade and become self-sufficient seems less relevant when Oxfam started the first charity shop back in 1947 (and they were only copying the Salvation Army and Red Cross who ran second hand clothing shops before that). Similarly, pointing to the co-op movement (which was enshrined in law in the UK in the 1850s and 60s) as a new dawn ignores the mutualism prevalent in Europe at the time, and the craft guilds and friendly societies which existed since the 11th century.

Perhaps this helps make a wider point about (social) innovation and how we should think of it: not innovation in the sense of brand new Eureka ideas (innovation as novelty) but as a continuous process of refinement and incremental improvement, with the occasional bound forward. We are building on the ideas and actions of those who came before, responding to their innovations, and building upon them. But we are also responding to the problems and challenges that some of their innovations have created: advances in medicine mean a growing, ageing population; advances in transport have pollution as a by-product. This helps explain why those who have said (at various points in time), "everything has been invented", are utterly wrong: the need for innovation, particularly social innovation, will never go away.

As John Cage, the US composer puts it, "I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas; I'm frightened of the old ones".

GenY: The future of Social Enterprise?

It seems that the job market is approaching a generational crossroads. Rosetta Thurman  reports that the idealistic baby boomers that once started the non-profits that blossom today are leaving their jobs to retirement. But who is going to replace them? Generation Y perhaps? (The Internet generation, born roughly between 1976-2000). They are young, ambitious, highly selective and are now gradually entering the job market for the first time.

In China, at least 550 million people fit the profile, almost double the entire U.S. population. In America however, Generation Y number about 70 million, still a sizable group. Recent news reports from the Iowa Caucuses indicate that these youngsters are a force to recognize, virtually handing Barack Obama the momentum in the U.S. presidential race. These echo boomers are techno sawy, they demand change, they are financially smart and they want to make a difference from day one. At a glance it may seem that the growth of social enterprises and entrepreneurship should explode any day now, and I admit, the environment is ripe for harvest. It seems though that the harvesters are sleeping and unless they act on the momentum the Gen Yers will shift their attention somewhere else.

Idealism is no longer a word only associated with hippies and environmentalists but rather a powerful influence on today’s youth. However, idealism by itself normally does not survive the transition into adult life unless it becomes real. It is kind of like believing in Santa Claus down at the local mall; one day your bound to catch him during a smoke break in the back alley. For many young people, idealism works the same way. You grow up and realize that it was all a scam and that you cannot matter or make change in the big picture.

In our day and age, secondary schooling normally work as this wake-up call. For hours on end I learned about hunger and drought, the AIDS epidemic, war and terror, ethnic strife, climate change and poverty. At first I was determined to fix it all, until one day I gave up, thinking I couldn’t do anything that would make a difference. In schools, students are shown the big picture but never the solutions, which are almost always small and local. Schools should of course continue to teach reality, but someone has to show young people that there are solutions - and that’s where the third sector comes in!

I am lucky to intern at SSE where I get to witness first-hand the many local solutions that exist. The social sector has the potential to grow immensely now that GenY is growing up, but only if it provides opportunities for idealism to continue to exist in today’s brutal reality. The sector must reach out to GenY and show young idealists that solutions are real, and many. The first step in this process should be to transform idealism from an abstract term into tangible, visible and practical examples. Luckily for us, idealism doesn’t take smoke breaks and doesn’t wear a fake beard. The question remains however, how can the sector reach out to the younger generation, now ready to enter the job market?

Monday round-up to start your Enterprise Week

Yes, gird your loins people, it's Enterprise Week, with Social Enterprise Day taking place on Thursday. And what better way to start the week than with the usual SSE round-up:

- Final word for now on SSE student Sabrina on Secret Millionaire; other Fellows (thanks Dave and Catherine) point out that you can get to the episode via Channel 4's On Demand section, though it takes 15 mins or so to set up and register with C4.

- Rob Greenland pointed me to Mike Chitty's post about the Benefits of Slow Learning. For all those that think  one-day workshops are enough:

"I think that very few managers would be able to absorb all of this content in one day and then to apply it successfully. It looks like it has been put together more for the convenience of the trainer than the learner.....[...]...Learning something, putting it into practice and becoming comfortable with it is important before trying to learn and implement the next thing".

Rob G. relates this to much current practice in our field of entrepreneur support:

"Intervene, at a time that suits the support agency, and look for a quick response. VAT registration, high-growth businesses, five staff employed in twelve months, that kind of thing. Instead of a more patient approach, which is less resource intensive, lets the entrepreneur develop at the pace that's right for them, and produces a long-lasting impact."

Amen to that....

-  As part of Social Enterprise Day, the Youth Commission for Social Enterprise is being launched this week (featuring SSE student Satwinder Singh). Meanwhile, in a Global Young Social Entrepreneurs' Competition, SSE Fellow Nathalie McDermott is one of the chosen 100. (Current Ambassador Matt Kepple is another). Check out the full global list.

- I mentioned the 6 practices of high impact non-profits the other day. Adrian from UnLtd points out that a couple of related audio versions are available via Social Innovation Conversations here and here.

- Would you like to go to the University of the Third Sector? I'll wait till the student union is established...

- On to Enterprise Week, here's a selection of stuff happening:

• the FT have got a special section for the week, featuring Ronald Cohen and others
• on Thursday, there is a Make Your Mark in 60 seconds event going on, in which young entrepreneurs pitch to such luminaries as Peter Jones and Emily Eavis
• a programme called "ideas to change the world" launches on Tuesday
• Hilary Armstrong MP is speaking at an event in Durham on Thursday
• LCRN have a breakfast on Tuesday morning
• And SSE hosts Stan Thekaekara, legendary social entrepreneur, for a witness session
• See Make Your Mark for much more...

- And finally, Social Firms are behind a song, nay, a rap to promote Social Enterprise Day. See Single Released to Social Enterprise Day to download the single on Thursday. The SSE blog has heard a sneak preview of the song (and you can read the lyrics via the link above) but no longer feels young enough to comment with any authority on the quality.

However, it does raise the thought in my head of a kind of Anfield Rap of Social Enterprise, with, say, Tim Smit freestyling over some dubstep, before a full-on rap battle between John Bird and Tim Campbell; with a Minister as MC, perhaps......

Have a great week: we'll try and keep track of media throughout the week on the blog.

Friday round-up: entrepreneurs, ethiscores, e-stuff, etc

SSE is going on its residential this coming week: 90+ people descending from London, Liverpool, Fife, East Midlands, and Ireland to Dartington in Devon for a three-day learning session and networking. So don't expect too much blogging before Thursday (although if I get a connection / time, I'll try). Final swift run through news / links of interest...

- NESTA are running a series of articles from entrepreneurs (sponsored by BVCA: venture capitalists) which asks them that all important question, "what do you wish you'd known?" The first is from Peter Denyer (pdf).

- We often discuss scale on this blog, and the very few examples of successful scaling in this movement. So what happens to those ethical businesses who get taken over by the big players? Here's an interesting article examining exactly that, and giving them an 'ethiscore' for before and after takeover....

- More on technology and how online and offline need to work together: 'Is the information society a community catalyst or community liability?'

- On the same subject: Netsquared UK might be in the offing (web 2.0 meets social innovation?), although what the "third sector is broken" means remains a mystery to me. Lots more written about this on the bloggers that Nick Booth links to....

- Apples are Square. Meaning, apparently, that leadership qualities have changed: from 'control and compete' to 'service, humility, transparency, inclusiveness'. Check here for more.

- Much mention of the third sector in Parliament recently (my TheyWorkForYou alerts have been working overtime). VolNews points us to the debate about the third sector review, which apparently lasted 5 hours, and plucks out some highlights (Community Champions fund, or lack of therein, amongst them).

- Provocative title, shocking statistics, important debate: Philanthropy doesn't care about black people

- And finally, the Times have an Enterprise Network...who will offer you advice and wisdom.

Have a great weekend...

Cameron's social enterprise zones part 2

So the Conservative plans that were trailed on the radio were released today, with an article by David Cameron in the Guardian. Key quotes? "The social enterprise is the great institutional innovation of our times" (which one of the comments underneath refers to as "nonsense on stilts"); "We need a more fine-grained approach to tackle multiple deprivation at the micro-level" (neighbourhood rather than local authority?); "The answer lies in communities themselves, not in well-meaning schemes directed from Whitehall"; and "the smaller, locally based voluntary organisations, which are often the most effective at combating entrenched deprivation, are losing out to the large national operations". It then goes on to detail the social enterprise zones, tax breaks and planning exemptions I mentioned yesterday.

A few emerging reports on this, of course, with most focusing on the tax breaks element, as with the BBC report Tories consider social tax breaks.  More tomorrow, no doubt...you can read the actual report via Conservatives.com (I particularly enjoyed, after posing the question of whether all the various govt-led initiatives have achieved success in regeneration terms, the following: "It is not, of course, possible to give a definitive answer to this important question. As Chou En-lai once remarked when asked whether the French Revolution had been a success, it is too early to tell.")

From our point of view, SSE seeks to establish its franchise centres in areas in need of regeneration, so the (re)focus on social entrepreneurship as a means of addressing (multiple) deprivation is to be welcomed. As is a focus on what the report calls the "waste of human talent" in such areas: precisely the people we aim to help. Any incentives are also welcome, and the report has some common sense things to say about why some social enterprises have chosen a charitable structure for (largely) tax reasons. As ever, though, all our research shows access to capital and financial incentives will achieve little without tailored, long-term support. A message which we hope both parties have heard and taken on board by now. An SSE in every SEZ, perhaps?

Cartoon for the early-stage social entrepreneur: go team!

Great GapingVoid cartoon which sums up those early stages of starting up an organisation; we've all been there....[click to expand]

Third Sector Leadership event: nuggets of leadership gold

The Third Sector Leadership Centre's inaugural big event took place this week at Vinopolis in South London, and there were nuggets of gold to be had. Given that social entrepreneurs are often instantly leaders as well, and often the next generation of third sector leaders, I thought I'd try and capture a few brief highlights from some of the speakers and presentations:

- Digby Jones, recently DG of the CBI, started us off with the keynote, and he had some good leadership advice, including:

• lead by example (if it's uncomfortable, do it first)
• ensure people take their holidays
• put the hours in, but...
• ...if it can wait till tomorrow, go home tonight
• problems at work often stem from problems at home
• communicate at all times: foster a culture of openness and honesty
• look out for others: "good leaders are unselfish people"
• have a sense of humour
• remember QED: Quality (of organisation, brand, the work), Environment (workplace, politics) and Dosh (has to be right; "if there's room in the budget, give it to them not you...then tell them you have")

Inevitably, he also banged on about the need to educate people about risk, about the low levels of literacy and numeracy, and that there are winners and losers. To quote directly, "If they can't do things, let's put an exocet up their chuff". And he ended with another pearl of wisdom: "It's very diffficult to give a bollocking to a cheerful person"

[In theory, this led on to a "big debate" but actually we just had a series of speakers (something of a shame for those of us expecting/hoping for sparks to fly)....]

Stuart Etherington of NCVO started with a generous tribute to Stephen Bubb of ACEVO for having the original idea, before moving on to what was distinct about leadership in the third sector, namely governance, measurement, more/more diverse stakeholders, combining delivery and policy, and multiple funding streams.

Shaks Ghosh, ex of Crisis and now at the controversial Private Equity Foundation, talked about leadership being about:

• reaching down into communities, and understanding how to lead within communities
• the challenge of remembering where we came from, and retaining that contact with the grassroots
• fearlessness (in pushing boundaries, grasping opportunities...and saying no)
• good management, as well as energy and passion

Stephen Bubb, chief exec of ACEVO, reciprocated the tribute from NCVO's boss (who said they didn't get on? ;0) and  gave his insights:

• best leadership lessons are learned on the job
• "tipping point" leadership: you don't always need everyone with you...sometimes you are  ahead of them, seeking opportunities and reading trends
• whingeing: a CEO should never do it, but point out the way forward (there was a  swipe here at whingers in the sector, methinks)
• "You don't cross a chasm one step at a time" (from Lloyd George)

Finally, Campbell Robb, the Director General of the Office of the Third Sector, shared his insights (the first of which was not to speak fifth, as Digby Jones walked out as he started....!), starting with an anecdote in which he referred to an exercise on a Harvard programme about the power of silence. Having chatted to his partner, she asked if NCVO had "sent you to Harvard to find out you talk too much", before adding that she could have done that much more cheaply. The lesson from this was to look to those who know you. Others included:

• keep mission and values at heart
• have empathy and humility (and a willingness to learn at all times)
• create space for fearlessness

Add all of those up and some sort of perfect leader may emerge...and more still came out under questioning. Campbell Robb had a neat summation of the independence issue (govt: "why don't you do what we pay for?"; sector: "why don't you pay for what we do?"), while Stuart Etherington talked of the "uniqueness of managing people who don't have to be there" (volunteers). Stephen Bubb called for boldness over paying for the best people, and being professional and passionate (and that the two are possible in tandem).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The sessions I was in were varied: the first was (in title) about leadership in local communities, but was really an introduction to an evaluation/planning tool, rather grandly titled Weavers Triangle. It's basically a triangle with Overall aim at the top, Aims/Outcomes at the middle level, and Activities/Outputs at the bottom. Like this:

It was quite interesting, but caused lively debate as there was inconsistency in the way it was described at different times.The flaw for me is that there is no sense of "needs" in that equation: what unmet needs are trying to be met? As Ben from Bassac said to me afterwards, though, it's just a tool...and people can do what they will with it.

The second session I went to was "leading a social enterprise". This was obviously more directly SSE's field, so no great revelations, although it was interesting to gauge the cultural barriers from some voluntary sector organisations to trading and earning income. The Adventure Capital Fund gave a presentation about their work (which was very dry; some case studies would really have brought this alive) in terms of mixed loans and grants, and seeking a blended return + the type of support they provide during the length of their involvement.

There was also a social entrepreneur, Kevin from Pecan, an organisation in Peckham which had been revitalised through nimbleness and new innovations. He was a much more engaging speaker (almost all questions went to him), and covered important issues like risk, internal skills, shift in cultures, and the need to communicate the social impact of enterprise activities. He also gave a real sense of this being a people-driven change, rather than simply adopting a model or structure which would solve all problems.

[btw, it was great to see an SSE Fellow and current student in that session as well....]

---------------------------------------
Other stuff: some decent networking, an interesting whistlestop session on integrative leadership (which I'll come back to another time, methinks), and a final plenary which didn't do much for me but others seemed to enjoy. There was one great quote from Susan Digby (or Susan Digby Jones as she was called in the programme!), founder of the Voices Foundation who said, in response to a question about leadership/gender, that she'd always been able to get any man to do anything for her! Her advice included:

• learn on the job
• absolute blind faith in the mission
• strong support systems (at home and work)
• display passion + work hard
• work on the ground: it feeds and sustains the motivation

Final note to Tracy Beasley, Director of the TSLC (and congrats to her and her team on the event being a real success), who left us with the thought that "there can be no change if there is no learning", which certainly underpins SSE's work and has done since inception.

The definition of social entrepreneurship (yes, again)

There's a big article out at the moment on the Stanford Social Innovation Review, entitled "Social Entrepreneurship: the Case for Definition". The abstract is as follows:

"Social entrepreneurship is attracting growing amounts of talent, money, and attention. But along with its increasing popularity has come less certainty about what exactly a social entrepreneur is and does. As a result, all sorts of activities are now being called social entrepreneurship. Some say that a more inclusive term is all for the good, but the authors argue that it’s time for a more rigorous definition."

It's quite an interesting article with some good points and case studies, and I'd generally recommend a read of it. But, it's central premise is that social entrepreneurship is only social entrepreneurship if it has scale or, in their words, "lead to a new superior equilibrium". Here's what they say:

"We define social entrepreneurship as having the following three components:
- (1) identifying a stable but inherently unjust equilibrium that causes the exclusion, marginalization, or suffering of a segment of humanity that lacks the financial means or political clout to achieve any transformative benefit on its own;
- (2) identifying an opportunity in this unjust equilibrium, developing a social value proposition, and bringing to bear inspiration, creativity, direct action, courage, and fortitude, thereby challenging the stable state’s hegemony;
- and (3) forging a new, stable equilibrium that releases trapped potential or alleviates the suffering of the targeted group, and through imitation and the creation of a stable ecosystem around the new equilibrium ensuring a better future for the targeted group and even society at large."

It's a little bit tricky, I acknowledge, to take this out of context (do read the whole piece: it's more understandable then), but the argument seems utterly flawed to me. They start by saying that we must first define entrepreneurship, because 'social' simply modifies that. OK, fine. They then go through entrepreneurship definitions (Schumpeter, Drucker et al)....and end up with:

"we believe that entrepreneurship describes the combination of a context in which an opportunity is situated, a set of personal characteristics required to identify and pursue this opportunity, and the creation of a particular outcome"

OK, no argument from me there. And no argument with the characteristics they then pull out (inspiration, creativity, prone to action, courage, fortitutde). But the case studies of entrepreneurs they select are only large scale disruptive entrepreneurs: the founders of eBay and Apple and so on. This means they move towards a definition of entrepreneurship which involves scale as well:

"It is through mass-market adoption, significant levels of imitation, and the creation of an ecosystem around and within the new equilibrium that it [the new equilibrium] first stabilizes and then securely persists."

Before finally moving, inexorably and inevitably, towards a definition of social entrepreneurship that involves scale as well. And those who don't achieve scale? They are "social service providers"....:

"But unless [social service provision] is designed to achieve large scale or is so compelling as to launch legions of imitators and replicators, it is not likely to lead to a new superior equilibrium.

These types of social service ventures never break out of their limited frame: Their impact remains constrained, their service area stays confined to a local population, and their scope is determined by whatever resources they are able to attract. These ventures are inherently vulnerable, which may mean disruption or loss of service to the populations they serve. Millions of such organizations exist around the world – well intended, noble in purpose, and frequently exemplary in execution – but they should not be confused with social entrepreneurship."

So basically, their argument is: entrepreneurship involves certain characteristics, but is also about fundamentally changing (through disruption/imitation) a sector or field on a large scale. Therefore, social entrepreneurship (and I don't disagree with how they define the social part of this: primacy of mission etc) is the same.

[Incidentally, why these groups are "inherently vulnerable", anymore than a large organisation set up by an entrepreneur is beyond me....for another time, perhaps...]

But they can only get to this point by creating a definition of entrepreneurship that involves scale. Which is, well, not something you find in many definitions of the word/concept. Aren't there small entrepreneurs?

I'd like to be really clear that we have nothing against the kind of social entrepreneurs (Yunus, Victoria Hale etc) they describe: they and the work and impact of their organisations is magnificent, and deserves to be recognised and supported. And Skoll have done wonders in promoting the movement through the Forum and supporting social entrepreneurship through their awards (the latest 2007 awardees are another impressive set of amazing people). But why must a definition (which they want to avoid confusion, and because "We are concerned that serious thinkers will also overlook social entrepreneurship".) exclude those who demonstrate the same characteristics, the same entrepreneurial spirit and mindset, with the same primacy of mission, and achieving the kind of changes they discuss, but on a smaller scale?

What is wrong, for example, with differentiating between, as we recently discussed in several posts with the Shaftesbury Partnership, "system" social entrepreneurs and "community" social entrepreneurs, whilst acknowledging that some of the latter may morph into the former?

Anyone who reads this blog regularly will know that we cover this ground regularly and that we are more interested in getting on with delivery than going round in circles forever in this debate. But I couldn't ignore this, particularly as this pre-eminent emphasis on scale is precisely what our talk at Skoll and forthcoming paper (on the long tail of social entrepreneurship) are intended to address.

Lest you think I'm alone in this critique, a few people have responded (here it is called a "lullaby to elites" in the comments, which is a bit strong!), but the first comment under the paper on Stanford's own site says it pretty plainly:

"This [the article] is interesting but unfortunately just completely wrong. The vast majority of entrepreneurs are small. This does not stop them from being entrepreneurs. So it is with social entrepreneurs. The vast majority are small. This does not stop them from being social entrepreneurs. How big or influential they become is entirely irrelevant to their status, as it is with entrepreneurs generally. Treating the extent of their growth or influence as an indicator of their status is a category error, like saying only large buildings with penthouses are really buildings, and my house therefore doesn’t count as a building. Similarly many entrepreneurs fail. This doesn’t stop them being entrepreneurs. So it is with social entrepreneurs. Many will fail. This doesn’t stop them being social entrepreneurs. The above argument applies. There may be some conceivably valid reasons for wanting a definition, such as the one given at the end of the article - that people will be confused if you don’t - but this reason has nothing to do with the size or influence or success of social entrepreneurs."

SSE Fellows: update on activity

As I flit between the Scylla and Charybdis of CapacityBuilders Destination 2014 and the new proposal for a Social Investment Bank (see also this Observer interview with Sir Ronald Cohen), news comes in from around our Fellowship network:

 

- first up, Charles Armstrong, founder and CEO of Trampoline Systems, which was developed with and at the SSE (it also powers our extranet), writes to tell us that they have received £3million funding from US investors; fabulous news, and also a boost for UK-based 2.0 tech companies more generally

 

- Chris Dabbs, who is both a Fellow and helped establish and run the Salford SSE pilot programme, is now also the co-ordinator of the NHS Social Enterprise Network; Chris e-mails to point me to an article he wrote in Health Services Journal, entitled, Taking care of business (registration/login required; can e-mail a copy if wished) which focuses on the support that (social) entrepreneurs need for the NHS to really be transformed in the way we would all hope....well worth reading

 

- An SSEI (Ireland) Fellow, Anna Lo, has become the first ever ethnic minority candidate to be elected in Northern Ireland and, indeed, the first Chinese candidate ever to be elected to any UK assembly or parliament. An amazing achievement.

 

- Jude Habib, who graduated from the London programme in December 2006, points us to her spangly new website which is up and running: her organisation, SoundDelivery is taking "a fresh approach to communications for the third sector", so check our their recent work and activity....

 

- finally, our chief exec Alastair Wilson, himself a Fellow of the first SSE programme back in 1998, features in Regeneration and Renewal's current edition (online here but subscription required) under the headline "Have-a-go helper". It's a good introduction to SSE, covering the methodology (learning by doing, case study driven), the importance of legitimacy ("Nobody appoints a social entrepreneur....it's very important that they see it is possible to create things from scratch"), its track record (85% projects still running), its history (Michael Young and the importance of personal motivation), and why (and how) the government should invest in supporting social entrepreneurs....